The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-12-10
- - - -
The VETO.

Attorney eneral said that "he bad
grave doubts whether or not this
action on the part of the King would
have to be sustained by the sigma
ture of one of his responsible Min
isters." He thereupon quoted
Article 7S of the Constitution which,
with all respect to his legal acumen,
does not bear upen the veto at all,
for this act of the King, indepen-
dent of his Cabinet, is expressly
provided for by Article 48, or
otherwise expressed" to quote the
phraseology of Article 7S.
The Acknowledgement argued that
a veto message should be counter
signed by Ministers to make it va
lid under Article A of the Constitu-
ton. This position is clearly an I'M
tenable one, as may be demonstrate
ed from his own statement of facts
in this case. He said that Ministers
did not advise the King to veto any
bill; on the contrary, the Cabinet
advised him to sign every bill. But
Article AZ Of the Constitution gives
the King right of veto, should he
disapprove of Till presented for
his signature. How, then, could
the King exercise that right il he is
bound absolutely to follow the adj
vice OF his Ministers, when they adj
wise him to approve what he cannot
endorsed.
1t surely will not be contended by
Ministers that they can, at their own
pleasure or caprice, nullify Article
4S of the Constitution! This, how
ever, is what the Attorney-General's
contention amounts to if the veto
can only be exercised by the advice
of Ministers. But the Article in
question makes the approval or veto
of Bill personal right or prero-
gative of the King, for which he is
responsible to the Legislature and
not to his Cabinet. The language
of the Article leaves no room for de-
bate or doubt. 1t says: every
bill which shall have passed the
Legislature shall, before it becomes
law, be presented to the King. If
he approve he shall sign it and it
shall thereby become law, but if
not, he shall return it with his OBJ
jections to the Legislature, which
shall enter the objections at large on
their journal and proceed to recon
slider. If after such reconsider
alton, it shall be approved by a
two-third vote of all the elective
members of the Legislature, it shall
become a law"
Now, here is ITO ambiguity. This
Article provides for the exercise of
the veto when the King differs in
opinion from his Ministers regarding
a bill, and it will be observed that
Ministers are excluded, first and
last, from participating in veto.
1t is the Kings personal act, in the
exercise of his Constitutional pre-
rogative, and can only be reviewed
by the elective members of the Leg
islature to which section of that
body Ministers do not belong. Yet
the Acknowledgement made it
matter of complaint against the
King that he followed the Constitu-
ton strictly in the premises, "this
action being taken outside the
Cabinet"
Minister Thurston, also lawyer,
went further, and said that the real
point at issue is "Are the people
to rule this country or is an ire
sponsible monarch To rule it," This
is neither sense nor argument. 1t
is demagougy, pure and simple.
The people are to be ruled by the
Constitution, and the tribunal to
interpret the organic law is the
Supreme Court and not Ministers or
the Legislature.
On the other hand, suppose
Ministers advised the King to sign
a bill which he nevertheless vetoed,
would any member of the Cabinet
countersign the veto and thereby
become responsible for it under
Article Al of the Constitution?
What an absurd position that would
be for responsible Minister to
occupy. And suppose the House
passed the bill over veto, counter
signed by a Minister, would the
Cabinet resign in consequence as
not possessing the confidence of the
Legislature! Article AZ is intended
to guard against such an occurrence,
as would necessarily result from the
adoption of the method of procedure
advocated by Ministers.
Furthermore, the veto is legis-
lative and not an executive act, and
will Ministers presume to say. that
their advice is necessary to its ex-
ercise? Clearly not; although from
appearances they do not know the
difference between executive and
legislative acts. The Constitution
makes the King the equivalent of
one-third of the Legislature for the
purpose of veto; two-thirds can
override it. Would the Attorney
General say that law is invalid
unless countersigned by a Minis
ter? Yet this is the logical outcome
of his argument.
The Constitution does not make
the King an automaton, to be moved
by Ministerial strings, 1t preserves
the veto in modified form, and it
IL the KINGS nraroootiVn IN pxaroisa